Chick-Fil-A Closed …
So, last night on my way home, I decided to stop by Chick-Fil-A, diet notwithstanding. I got to the restaurant at about 7:15 only to find out they were closed. Inside, the employees were cleaning up and sweeping the floor. I pantomimed confusion, and a young man with a broom did his own pantomime of eating, gesturing that they were out of food!
Meanwhile, a man of about my age, perhaps a few years older, walked up and asked incredulously, “They’re closed?”
“Yeah,” I said with a stupid grin on my face, “they ran out of food.”
“Awesome!” he said, breaking into a smile, giving the employee inside a thumbs up. “I just wanted to show my support. I guess we can call that mission accomplished.”
Several other people drove up and they all had the same reaction when told about the store being closed because they ran out food.  Fist pumps and smiles.
I felt like just hanging around – happy conservatives everywhere.
It occurred to me as I was driving away, that unlike union thugs, or OWS lowlifes, our side doesn’t have to be paid to show up.
Sign Up For Post Alerts!
The posts are coming!Currently Reading
-
The Complete Aubrey/Maturin Novels (re-reading) by Patrick O’Brian
11 comments
In fact, you pay to show up and eat their food. Givers, not takers.
Do you think the support of Chick-Fil-A was more a position on gay marriage or about free speech?
[Reply]
Martin Reply:
August 2nd, 2012 at 8:47 am
I think people are just tired of the double standard for so called “tolerance.” Most people are of a “live and let live,” mentality, regardless of their opinions. It’s when people start shoving a decidedly minority opinion perspective down your throat and telling you that if you disagree you are a bigot, homophobe or anachronism, that they have enough.
Don’t tell me what I have to accept. Don’t tell me that I have to grant credence to lifestyle choices as being valid. I don’t. I may tolerate things, but I don’t have to like them, I don’t have to agree with them, and I don’t have to validate them. What’s more, as far as that goes, I don’t even have to be tolerant. There is no law guaranteeing that everybody has to be nice (yet.) There are no guarantees that you can go through your whole life and not be offended.
Ironically, the surest way to engender the types of feelings that people like Rahm Emanuel are purportedly trying to combat, is to force their views on the rest of us. Whereas I might be inclined to live and let live, they succeed in riling me, and lot of other Americans up in opposition.
This is no different than with religion. I am not Muslim, and I don’t care if someone is, though I view it as a false religion incompatible with my beliefs. But, the moment someone starts screaming anti-American rhetoric (like in Dearborn, Michigan), my tolerance goes out the window.
[Reply]
Curtice Mang Reply:
August 3rd, 2012 at 7:58 am
Of my top 25 issues, gay marriage probably ranks somewhere around 67th. It’s just not that important to me. But free speech is – and I think that’s what the majority of those who have supported Chick-Fil-A are concerned about. People should be free to patronize or not patronize any business of their choosing. But when elected officials state that they will not allow a busniess to open because of the personal beliefs of a company executive, that’s not just wrong, but illegal. Rahm Emanuel states that those are not Chicago values (although Cathy’s stated stance on gay marriage was the same as Emanuel’s boss’s stance when he worked at the White House). It’s not like Chick-Fil-A is gunning down people in the street – although that would make them right at home in Chicago. Chicago values indeed!
[Reply]
I’m in San Diego, home of California weirdos. Waited until 2:00 PM to go to Chick-Fil-A. Thought the lunch crowd would be back at work. Thousands of people in line, both in drive-thru and on foot. The line of people not even inside store went for blocks. Not a lot of MSM coverage. Can’t figure out why.
[Reply]
Martin Reply:
August 2nd, 2012 at 8:49 am
Hey Jim, according the news here, at least three stores ran out of food. The managers were standing outside in the drive-through apologizing to smiling, happy patrons.
[Reply]
Same results here in Phoenix. The people ahead of us in line turned to look at us when we entered and we both broke in to knowing grins, and then into conversation. People who didn’t know each other were talking. Now I have a question. Why can’t the word “marriage” be specific for meaning the union of a man and woman. Eskimos have 99 specific words for snow, each designating a different kind, with none being better than the others. To want to preserve the word for a specific meaning does not mean that I do not want others to be able to share being joined. Partnerages, Unionages, etc could still carry the same rights and privileges. Just wondering.
[Reply]
And cows everywhere rejoiced.
[Reply]
I am a lifelong republican, and a huge fan of Chick-Fil-A – that said – if we are talking about a company that donates money to organizations that fight to have rights taken away from Americans. They donated money to the groups (based in the US) that were promoting the Kill The Gays bill in Uganda. I think people are up in arms about this because it isn’t about “live and let live” – its about using your voting power to take rights away from fellow Americans. So those who say, I don’t have to like it – that’s true – you don’t. But if you start taking rights away from people you don’t agree with, you aren’t living in a free country. You’re living in a country that allows the will of the majority to decide the fate of the minority. That’s wrong.
[Reply]
Chick-fil-A is just exercising their First Amendment rights by running a business based on the Bible, right? Wrong. There’s a line between the “free exercise of religion” and violating the law. If Chick-fil-A is violating the law by discriminating against gay people, or by firing women so that they can be “stay home” moms, as one woman who is suing Chick-fil-A says in court documents, that’s not exercising religious expression or free speech, and that’s not a First Amendment issue. It may be, if the court decides, a violation of the law.
Even if you don’t support same-sex marriage, do you want to support a company that might fire women to force them to be “stay home” moms against their will?
There are plenty of good restaurants that are happy to work hard for your hard-earned dollar. Why support a company that is working so hard to deny people their rights?
[Reply]
Jeff Edelman Reply:
August 2nd, 2012 at 8:29 pm
If we’re truly talking about liberty, Sandra, then a business owner ought to be able to hire and fire whomever he/she wishes. Also, they should be able to deny service to whomever they wish. The law you speak of is the law of social justice. The means by which a coercive and intrusive regime engineers the type of society it thinks just, where the defendant is guilty until proven innocent. This is contrary to the law of the land — the U.S. Constitution.
[Reply]
Sandra, Snopes points out there is no evidence to support your statements re Chick Fil- A and the Uganda bill. You should check your facts before making such assertions. Further, last I looked the First Amendment was still in force. If you disapprove of the owner’s religious views, don’t eat there. As for being sued, anyone can go to court for any reason, but I believe it still is true that people are innocent until proven guilty.
[Reply]
Leave a Comment